THE ARTS
This PDF document was made available
CHILD POLICY
from www.rand.org as a public service of
CIVIL JUSTICE
EDUCATION
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE
the RAND Corporation.
Jump down to document6
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit
research organization providing
objective analysis and effective
solutions that address the challenges
facing the public and private sectors
around the world.
Support RAND
Purchase this document
Browse Books & Publications
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated
in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND
intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized
posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are
protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce,
or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For
information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.
This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series.
RAND monographs present major research findings that address the
challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for
research quality and objectivity.
A Common
Operating Picture
for Air Force
Materiel Sustainment
First Steps
Raymond A. Pyles, Robert S. Tripp,
Kristin F. Lynch, Don Snyder,
Patrick Mills, John G. Drew
Prepared for Project Air Force
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
PROJECT AIR FORCE
The research described in this monograph was sponsored by the
United States Air Force under contract FA7014-06-C-0001. Further
nformation may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division,
Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A common operating picture for Air Force materiel sustainment : first steps /
Raymond A. Pyles ... [et al.].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-8330-4128-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. United States. Air Force—Equipment and supplies. 2. Airplanes, Military—
United States—Maintenance and repair. 3. Logistics. I. Pyles, Raymond, 1941–
UG1103.A18 2008
358.4'180973—dc22
2008025824
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing
objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges
facing the public and private sectors around the world. R AND’s
publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients
and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark.
© Copyright 2008 RAND Corporation
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any
form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying,
recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in
writing from RAND.
Published 2008 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org
Summary
The Air Force materiel sustainment system (MSS) is continually caught
between two countervailing forces: demands for increased efficiency
and lower costs on one side, and demands for increasingly effective
support to combat operations and peacetime training on the other.2
Compounding the situation, the Air Force is currently facing more
unpredictable operational demands—in terms of both their location
and their required operating capabilities.
We envision a materiel sustainment system common operating
picture (COP) that would better synchronize the MSS’s activities—
enhancing responsiveness to changing operational needs, reducing
opportunities for unintended wasted effort, and coordinating efforts
to improve support in one agency while ensuring that complementary
efforts in another area are accomplished.
Underlying Principles for a Common Operating Picture
The notion of a COP is one that resonates with many people who work
in large organizations. Ideally, it would provide common guidance
and progress assessment that all parts of the organization could use to
2
We chose the term sustainment rather than operations and support because the former
includes all the activities associated with operating a fleet throughout its entire life cycle,
including modifying the fleet to increase its airworthiness (flight safety), efficiency, or effectiveness in its current missions or its ability to conduct other missions. Under this definition,
we include activities that change the fleet’s capabilities, not just those that restore them.
xv
xvi
A Common Operating Picture for Air Force Materiel Sustainment: First Steps
assess their own contributions and view their mutual achievements as
an integrated whole. While it would set explicit goals for both overall
system performance and individual agencies, it would also define sentinels—active monitors of leading indicators that signal when the overall
system’s performance may fall below intended levels.
To develop a COP that achieves the goal of synchronizing a
large organization’s activities, we turn to four organizing principles:
effects-based measures, schwerpunkt, decision rights, and a nonmarket
economic framework. Use of effects-based measures consists of first
defining the goals or objectives that an organization wants to achieve,
then defining (generally long-term) measures of effectiveness (MOEs)
for associated goals, and, finally, deriving measures of effectiveness
indicators (MOEIs) to monitor progress toward those goals. Schwerpunkt, which means “focal point,” is a notion drawn from physics and
German military doctrine that emphasizes achieving the commander’s
intent regardless of unplanned events that may render the original plan
obsolete, with even the lowest-level subordinates given wide latitude to
take independent action to respond more quickly to those unplanned
events. Decision-rights theory provides a framework that helps one
decide which agency or person should make a particular decision,
based on the information, decision capacity, and incentives that each
agency faces. Finally, the nonmarket economic framework recognizes
that inefficient conflicts can arise when a competitive market does not
exist and that, therefore, there is a need for a neutral integrator to help
resolve conflicts between demand-side and supply-side agencies within
large complex organizations such as the Air Force.3 (See pp. 5–18.)
3
In a military context, one can view the demand side as being operational forces that
require personnel, equipment, materiels, fuel, and services; the supply side would be the
combat support activities that provide those resources. Thus, the combat support activities
would be the rough equivalent of the supply chain that stretches from the local store to a
manufacturer in a commercial context.
Summary
xvii
A Procedure for Developing a Common Operating Picture
We then define a process for applying these principles. The process
consists of eight steps:
1. Identify the organization’s broader objectives.
2. Relate those objectives to effects that the supply side must
produce.
3. Identify measures of effectiveness.
4. Identify the processes and decisions that can affect each MOE.
5. Identify practical, comprehensive MOEIs and alarm thresholds
for each MOE.
6. Assign the decision rights for the demand side, supply side, and
neutral integrator to the lowest-echelon agency with the appropriate information and decisionmaking capacity.
7. Adjust the incentives for that agency to reward performance
against the relevant MOEIs.
8. Periodically review these steps and adjust the COP and decision
rights accordingly. (See pp. 19–31.)
An Example: Depot-Level Reparables for Aircraft
We then applied that process to the activities associated with aircraft
DLR sustainment, noting that other sustainment activities might contribute to other Air Force objectives. We identified five objectives associated with aircraft sustainment:
t
t
t
t
t
operational suitability
mission reliability
airworthiness
availability
sustainment cost.
Then we narrowed in on the availability objective to define an
MOE—aircraft not fully mission capable for DLRs (NFMCD)—
xviii
A Common Operating Picture for Air Force Materiel Sustainment: First Steps
that is associated with DLR sustainment.4 With that in mind, we then
identified several MOEIs (aircraft operational tempo [optempo], item
demand rates, and various pipeline quantities and trends) that might
act as leading indicators. (See pp. 33–48.)
With the MOEs and MOEIs in hand, we then assessed the current DLR sustainment system’s ability to plan, monitor, and control
NFMCD levels consistent with both the available funds and the needs
of the demand side. To perform that task, we identified the range of
decisions made throughout the Air Force that can affect NFMCD
and selected two key decisions for further analysis: planning financial
resources for DLR sustainment and reallocating financial and other
resources to meet changing operational requirements. Then we applied
a decision-rights matrix to evaluate the information available to the
many agencies whose decisions can affect NFMCD during planning
and execution. Because the planning system does not use NFMCD
consistently throughout the financial planning process, we evaluated
how such a system might work if NFMCD were available. This led to a
suggested organizational arrangement for DLR sustainment planning.
As shown in Figure S.1, this organizational structure envisions that a
newly created AFMC Centralized Asset Management office (AFMC
CAM)5 would act as a neutral integrator to help the demand side (the
major commands [MAJCOMs] and the Air Force forces [AFFOR]
assigned to combat commanders [COCOMs]) and the supply side
(maintenance, supply, and transportation supply-chain agencies and
suppliers whose efforts will be coordinated by the newly designated
GLSC develop a long-term DLR support plan. The neutral integrator’s
4
This measure expands the scope of a related measure—not mission capable (because of)
supply shortage (NMCS)—to encompass the full effects of the end-to-end DLR support
enterprise. First, it includes situations in which local base repair shops are repairing a component that could make an aircraft fully mission capable (FMC). Second, it includes situations
in which an unserviceable component leaves an aircraft partially mission capable (PMC),
that is, able to perform only a subset of the full range of missions for which it was designed.
5
CAM is both a “system” and an AFMC office within that system. The office plays a
lynchpin role in planning and managing the allocation of funds to Air Force sustainment
activities, thereby assuring responsive support to all the MAJCOMs and COCOMs—within
the limits of available resources.
Summary
xix
Figure S.1
The AFMC Centralized Asset Management Office Is the Neutral Integrator
for DLR Sustainment Financial Planning
HQAF
(HQ AFMC CAM
is executive agent)
nd
fu
Su
e
FM
re p te
qu m
ire p o
d ,N
av
s,
O
yt
ng
li t
ki
bi
ai
la
CD
bl
gs
na
Ta
s
ai
Taskin
st
MAJCOMs,
AFFOR
(Lead MAJCOM is
executive agent)
e
e, nc
b l la
il a b a
va E
s a MO
nd d
e
Fu i r e
ac
s
sp
de
de
ra
s
JCS,
COCOMS
Long-term
plan
GLSC/LSC
Sustainability trade space
Forces
Organic and contractor shops
DLA, TRANSCOM
Resources, processes,
Forecast demand rates,
capabilities, taskings
pipeline times, capacities
NOTE: The “GLSC/LSC” in the figure represents the Air Force’s current transitional
situation, in which implementation of the GLSC is still under way and, therefore,
separate MAJCOM logistics support centers (LSCs) supplement the GLSC.
RAND MG667-S.1
role would be to ensure that the plan balances future support among the
various demand-side agencies based on operational needs and priorities
while also exploiting the supply side’s financial and physical production resources to the fullest extent possible. To achieve this, the neutral
integrator (in this case, AFMC CAM) would seek explicit agreement
between the supply side and the demand side about the MOEs (operational tempo and NFMCD levels) to be achieved. (See pp. 48–98.)
In execution, the current DLR sustainment system has several
processes that can remedy the inevitable imbalances across fleets and
units when demands do not arise as predicted. Unfortunately, the cur-
xx
A Common Operating Picture for Air Force Materiel Sustainment: First Steps
rent processes can only mitigate imbalances once they become apparent; they cannot prevent imbalances from occurring. Because the
DLR support system requires some repair and transportation times to
respond to any imbalance, it must always play “catch up” if it relies
solely on the current state for guidance.
To give the DLR sustainment system a more proactive posture,
we identified how the new GLSC might monitor the NFMCD-based
MOEIs during execution to detect underlying demand and DLR support process changes that might threaten the planned NFMCD level—
before changes in that level reach unacceptable bounds. Thus, we suggest an organizational arrangement in which the GLSC acts as a central
communications conduit and overall system monitor between the suppliers and the demanders of DLR sustainment activities. As shown
in Figure S.2, the GLSC would monitor MOEIs (e.g., optempos and
pipeline quantities) that reflect ongoing operations of all agencies in the
supply side (including AFMC-owned and -operated agencies, such as
the Depot Maintenance Activity Group [DMAG], and external suppliers, such as the Defense Logistics Agency [DLA], the Transportation
Command [TRANSCOM], and the numerous contractors that repair
DLRs) and the demand side (MAJCOMs and COCOMs). To support that process, the execution COP would embody active monitors
of the MOEIs that we call sentinels. Those sentinels would periodically
compare the MOEIs to their alarm thresholds, which would be derived
from the NFMCD-based sustainment assessments developed for the
planning COP. Both the MOEIs and the sentinels alarms would be
available to the demand side and the supply side to monitor and control
their own operations, while the GLSC would focus on those MOEIs
that may signal some long-term, widespread, or other critical supply/
demand side imbalance.
Almost certainly, some portions of the supply side will be unable
to fully implement the detailed plan developed during the planning
process. Equally probable, some portions of the demand side will find
that their operational requirements change in response to new taskings or missions. In many cases in which the disruption to the original
plan is short or small, the supply-side resources may be flexible enough
to respond to those changes without breaching the original NFMCD
Summary
xxi
Figure S.2
GLSC Is the Neutral Integrator for Execution
,t
ar
ge
tN
FM
CD
al
in g
s
i ti
nd
In
Fu
GSLC/LSC
an
qu s
e
li n r m
p e ala
d
an
ti t
ie
s
MAJCOMs,
AFFOR
Lead MAJCOM is
executive agent
HQAF
Pi
op
te
m
Re
po
,N
an vi s
e
FM
d
Re
o p d tr
CD
ti o a d
N F vi s
go
e
e
ns
M d
s
al
pa
CD op
s
c
e
g o te m
al
p
s
o,
JCS,
COCOMS
Sustainability
assessment
Pipeline
sentinels
DMG, DLA,
contractors,
TRANSCOM
GLSC/CSW is
executive agent
Wings and deployed units
Shops, parts suppliers
Resources, processes,
capabilities, taskings
Resources, processes,
capacities, taskings
NOTE: The “GLSC/LSC” in the figure represents the Air Force’s current transitional
situation, in which implementation of the GLSC is still under way and, therefore,
separate MAJCOM logistics support centers (LSCs) supplement the GLSC.
RAND MG667-S.2
goals for each force. When the disruption is larger, the GLSC would
undertake a replanning effort in concert with the supply and demand
side agencies that would rebalance the supply-side and the demand-side
activities—for the near term. That revised plan might lead to changing
the financial or other resources available on the supply side or changing
the optempo or NFMCD goals on the demand side, depending on the
circumstances and the overall military requirements.
xxii
A Common Operating Picture for Air Force Materiel Sustainment: First Steps
Conclusions and Next Steps
As appealing as this conceptual DLR planning and control system
design may appear, we anticipate that considerable refinement and
extension will be needed for this design to be applied successfully. Certainly, any application of the new system design will encounter constraints and procedures that, while effective or efficient in the current
planning and control system, may interfere with this system’s conceptual foundations. Over time, those processes will need to be revised
to enhance the planning and control system’s ability to ensure the
intended NFMCD levels efficiently.
Finally, the process used to define a COP for DLRs could be
applied to other materiel sustainment activities and product lines. (See
pp. 99–101.)